Seminar introduction: the UK government’s recent White Paper ‘Our Energy Future: Creating a Low-Carbon Economy’ proposes to cut greenhouse gas emissions more radically than is proposed by the Kyoto Protocol. Further development of nuclear power is not on the agenda, and alternative energy sources such as wind power are often championed instead. What balance should be struck between emission reduction and future energy production?
Information on panelists can be found on the spiked events page.
These notes have not been checked against recording of the event or with the presenters, and comments should not be directly cited. However, they are based on notes taken at the time, and will convey the general and specific sentiments of the presenters and audience contributors.
John Lawton
Climate change is the biggest danger we face today
We can’t afford to burn fossil fuels at all, as CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time
The nuclear option was ‘parked’ due to political difficulties, but there will be no alternatives to nuclear for next 30 years
There are no simple options. Gas still produces CO2, and increases Britain’s reliance on imports. Renewables: wind farms are not sufficient and people don’t want them in their back yard, biomass-fulled power stations may require GM crops to fuel them and people are hostile to GMOs.
The impact of global warming won’t just be better weather in the UK, but will be seen in more extreme weather events, and a rising sea level.
Chris Anastasi
Is there a problem? Some people still believe that we are just in a period of natural environmental change. The real issue is how we manage risk. We mustn’t discount those who don’t aren’t convinced about climate change.
We have had 100% security of supply in electricity to date, but will only have 20% one generation from now.
On balance government not doing enough to address our situation. And it only focuses on industry, avoiding the domestic sector and transportation.
Will we be successful in addressing climate change? Even if we succeed things will be uncomfortable, and if we don’t… I don’t want to leave that kind of legacy to my grandchildren.
Joe Kaplinsky
The key issue is the rise of risk aversion, for instance in the energy sector around nuclear power, which developed through the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents. In fact in the meantime nuclear power has become safer. People on the political right have become more concerned about nuclear proliferation and terrorism [and hence turned against some aspects of the nuclear industry].
With respect to solutions there is a sense of autarky [in US] and hostility to possibilities of international cooperation in energy production and distribution.
With other new solutions the discussion of risk comes to the fore earlier than in the past.
The global warming discussion is conducted in a risk averse framework. We need to step back from the crisis frame of mind, and move away from ‘cut emissions now’ response.
The hostility to large scale engineering will have an impact on some solutions, such as creating sea barriers [such as the Thames Barrier]. These [non-short term solutions] are seen as a distraction. We need a less risk averse approach, and a more public debate.
Chair Helene Guldbeg lead a short discussion with the panellists. Lawton noted that we need to do more research so we can reduce uncertainties. Anastasi [on the short- and mid-term options] that he didn’t want to take the risk, but wanted to “get on with it now”. Kaplinsky argued that the best way to ensure energy efficiencies is to encourage economic growth, as this would lead to, for instance, renewal of our housing stock with more energy efficient homes. He added that it doesn’t matter what technological solutions we come up with as risk aversion will still strike. We have to deal with this first.
Key points from the audience contributions. These are grouped by theme, and may not be in the order made. Where people gave them I have noted names, but spelling may be incorrect:
We have had warming in past, and ice age. How much of the impact is human-created? (Contributor not noted.) Not believing in global warming is like not believing in evolution because there is an ‘alternative theory’. (Liz Smith)
Why don’t we see this as an exciting challenge, not something to worry about? (Ceri Dingle) Would the Victorians have been as fearful about an equivalent problem? Has any society ever sat around and discussed standing still, or going backwards [as our society does today)? (Jennie Bristow) No one is talking about doing less, but doing things differently. (Contributor not noted.)
What about improving things for other people [in the developing world] and for us? (Nico Macdonald) [A proposed] economic benefit is a lot more motivating. (Rob Lyons)
Reclaiming land and growing was seen as possible in sixteenth century Holland. (Paul Reeves) We are told we need energy for economic growth, but economic growth (beyond the basics) doesn’t appear to bring happiness. (Terence Bendixson) No wonder people are unhappy with all this hand-wringing going on! (Daniel Ben-Ami)
The solutions proposed seem very parochial. We need ambitious solutions. (Contributor not noted.) We should look at energy generation on the moon [where it won’t lead to climate change] and have the power beamed back to earth. (JJ Charles)
Summing up: Lawton noted that we are in uncharted climactic territory compared to the 500 million years of human history we have mapped. Anastasi that it is not about morals but choices we need to make. Kaplinsky that if you are risk averse you won’t pursue ‘non-sure thing’ solutions. Optimism raises questions about our bigger future, for instance in space [with the idea of inhabiting other planets]. The worst case scenarios are assumed when this subject is discussed. The terms of the discussion – addiction, moralism – make society incapable of responding.
Comments